Existing Ethernet connections are limited to less than 350 feet to avoid signal degradation. While Ethernet extension devices are available to extend this range, these devices are generally packaged as “desktop boxes” otherwise known as “pizza box” solutions that increase clutter, increase installation complexity and/or can be removed by unauthorized personnel. WiFi wireless extensions are also limited to a few hundred feet in range, often have the same disadvantages of desktop or set top boxes, and raise security and interference concerns. A need therefore exists for an Ethernet extension technology that is packaged as a plug-in or standard electrical wall box to overcome these disadvantages.
In addition, according to dBrn Associates, Inc., an independent telecommunications consulting firm, “95% of data traffic begins and/or ends on an Ethernet interface.” It is not surprising, then, that Ethernet service offerings are growing while other data services stagnate. AT&T's Ethernet business grew by 100% in 2004.
Since common Ethernet speeds of 10 and 100 Mb/s are significantly faster than T1, which is currently the highest universally supported speed on copper, fiber optics is the primary means of providing Ethernet connectivity. Ethernet over fiber is beginning to have an impact on traditional SONET fiber transport. In a June 2005 report, the Information Data Corporation (IDC) (i.e., a subsidiary of Information Data Group, a global technology media, research, and events company) predicted that “the migration from . . . SONET . . . to Ethernet is well under way. Growth over the next five years will be substantial and metro [last mile] Ethernet represents one of the most significant opportunities in wireline telecom infrastructure.” IDC predicts that the metro Ethernet market will surpass the metro SONET market by 2010.
Yet, for all of the merits of fiber optics, and even considering new efforts to provide residential fiber service, little recent progress has been made to serve additional business locations with fiber optics. Fiber optics continues to reach less that 15% of domestic commercial sites. In fact, of the 750,000 business-use buildings in this country containing more than 20 workers, only about 5% have access to fiber optics, according to Ryan Hankin Kent (RHK) which provides telecommunications consulting.
Many companies now offer Ethernet-over-copper equipment products. While each has viable technology and most have had some market success, the products are either platform-based or box-based, and lack the plug-and-play simplicity of T1 and HDSL repeaters. To telephone companies (hereinafter referred to as “Telcos”), these products appear as yet another “network solution” or “pizza box” rather than a plug-in extension for existing infrastructure.
Products that provide Ethernet over twisted pair have been in existence for several years. Most are “pizza box” or shelf-based systems designed for efficient delivery of multiple Ethernet links. Some take the form of Integrated Access Devices (LADs). Others are designed for Multi-Tenant Units (MTUs) to distribute Ethernet to multiple users within a building. With few exceptions, vendors have generally marketed to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) and smaller Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) to avoid the long standardization cycles and the daunting relationship development required to sell to the RBOCs. One exception is XEL, recently purchased by Verilink. XEL's long relationship with GTE drove Verizon standardization of the Shark LAD. The Shark IAD provides Ethernet, low speed data and POTS/SPOTS over a two T1 link. The Verizon GTE acquisition paved the way for significant use of the Shark IAD (i.e., now a Verilink product) throughout the Verizon network.
Over all, however, such integrated products are problematic when compared with traditional RBOC “one-at-a-time” discrete CO or DLC-based topologies in terms of cost, administration and maintenance. However, for CLECs, LAD-type devices permit use of a leased T1 line to carry multiple voice and data circuits less expensively than individually leasing the same services from the incumbent Local Exchange Carrier for resale to a prospective customer.
DSL provides Ethernet-based internet access at relatively low cost. However, while a number of companies now use “Business DSL” for web access, such activity is generally segregated from telephony and corporate LAN or WAN data. Companies exist which offer web/IP-based voice service (e.g., Vonage) that some businesses now use, but security, reliability and, in some cases, access speed concerns keep DSL and existing DSL infrastructure from being considered a viable alternative to trusted Leased Lines, Frame Relay and ATM that offer Service Level Agreement (SLA) guarantees.
Thus, a need exists for an Ethernet extension device for providing metro or last mile Ethernet service via twisted pairs as opposed to fiber optics. Further, a need exists for an Ethernet-over-copper solution that has the plug-and-play simplicity of T1 and HDSL.
Finally, there exist Ethernet-over-copper products with similar functions (e.g., products offered by Patton Electronics in Germantown, Md.). These products, however, are not intended for mounting in a wall box, and they are not intended for interfacing to the phone network. They do not provide, for example, telco-required lightning protection which would permit them to interface to the telephone network. Other competitors such as Actellis, Lucent, Cisco, and others do have telephone network-compatible interfaces; however, they are large, expensive systems, and difficult to install. Thus, a need exists for a Ethernet-over-copper extension device that has plug-in capability (e.g., is implemented as a standard electrical wall box or plug-in card), and that can interface with the telephone network (i.e., has certification for lighting and power cross protections).